Should the 2d Amendment be amended to remove the confusing first phrase?

I believe any revisions to the wording of the 2nd Amendment would open Pandora's box. The LEFT would take advantage of any thought they could to change our right to bear arms. Great question and comments!

No, what folks need to realize, is at the time of framing this amendment, the militia was EVERY ABLE BODIED MAN in the town from 16 to 70 who had a weapon. There was no "National or State Guard" When the state needed troops it issued a call to the town militias to muster together. In essence, the phase a well regulated militia means every individual who is trained to use their weapon or knows how to use the weapon has a right to it.

The Second Amendment is only confusing to those people who MAKE it confusing by not doing even the most basic study of history.

People have a natural tendency to interpret things through their own experiences and views, which are formed by the events of their own times. Looking at things that happen outside their own times, their own culture, their own country, etc. often leads to misconceptions, confusion, and flat out wrong interpretations because such people are quite literally disconnected from the fundamentals in which those events occurred.

First of all, the "Bill of Rights" doesn't GRANT rights at all. It acknowledges the existence of certain rights and then places proscriptions on the GOVERNMENT with respect to denying citizens their rights. The "why" of the very existence of any right is never questioned. The right simply exists.

The Second Amendment acknowledges arms ownership and carrying itself as a RIGHT. It says that this right is ESSENTIAL to maintaining a free state...meaning a government that is not oppressive to its citizens. It never says that the right exists BECAUSE it's important to maintain the security a free state...it says that maintaining a free state is possible THROUGH the right. And the medium of that security is the militia, which means the able bodied citizens themselves.

The meaning is very clear if only people would look at the context of the time in which this amendment was drafted...including all the versions in which it was actually penned before the final draft. Not to mention just plain logic.

People who try to use modern English clause rules to figure this out are going to confuse the issue because modern English is not the same as Colonial American English at the time these documents we're talking about were written.

Also, people who might think that the drafters could not have made any errors in the written language when arguing how this was written would do well to notice the several spelling errors in the Constitution itself as testimony.

The history behind the Bill of Rights is very interesting. The states all provided a list of what they felt were essential rights which they were concerned about. The right keep and bear arms was one which was common among several of the states. They clearly meant it in its most basic meaning...CITIZENS HAD THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS AND THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT TO BE ALLOWED TO DENY THAT.

Besides...even if the Second Amendment WAS changed to be exactly that clear...the government would STILL argue that no rights are absolute and the "reasonable" restrictions were OK.

I don't think its confusing. See this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx23c84obwQ

But why add to it? How bout "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Remove the militia part... then add language to make dueling legal...

That should cure a lot of butt-hurt & add some civility to public discourse.

" an eye for an eye" leads to a world of the blind only works when #libtards rule... normal people are capable of learning.

The language isn't confusing. The first part stress the importance of the right, and the second part clearly guarantees the right. The opponents of liberty will always argue against it regardless of the language used.

I would have to say no, just because we should interpret what the original text says, but not alter it. There is clearly a debate over the meaning of different clauses. I do not think the appropriate solution is changing the original text.

It's not confusing to me, Top - but, if a change *had* to be made for clarification's sake, it could be done by adding one word to the subjective clause (the "confusing first phrase"):
"Because"

The main clause of the Amendment comes after the second comma - it can (and does) stand on its own:
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Since it can stand on its own, it's clear that the first clause is the subjective clause; that is, it's clarification of the "why".

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." This preamble, if you will, doesn't *say* anything. Reading that part without having the main clause behind it, says and codifies nothing. Except: using the phrasing of the day (and one can easily understand the meaning of each part if they read other writings by the Founders), one will understand this:
"A well practiced and able military group, standing ready for action, is necessary for a country's security from external and internal attack."

Then we go to the main clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Any time the Constitution says "people", specifically, it is referring to the individuals. When it's referring to the whole, it refers to the United States or the State. For example, the 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

- this specifically spells out that the Constitution was not written to limit the citizens, it's purpose is to limit the Federal government. If there is a problem with understanding any of the Constitution or the Amendments, or what they actually mean; it's not the phrasing that's the problem, or the "archaic" use of language, the problem is with the education of those reading it, or the willingness to twist the meaning by those who are teaching it.

But, again - if we "must" change it for clarification, how about this:
"Because a well regulated Military is necessary to the security of a free country, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed or restricted."
... that is, after all, what it says in our current vernacular.

when we elect / appoint some one i can trust to babysit my kids then we can talk about it

The only thing I'd add is right after "defend themselves" and before "their property", is "their family".